A few thoughts:
(-1) I'd suspect that an aircraft moving along at Mach 6 would be pretty bright in the infrared region of the spectrum. Its advantage would be in simply arriving over the target to be surveiled so quickly that a missile defense system would be unable to react to its presence in time to intercept it.
(0) Believe it: ALL of our "paranoid enemies" already know a LOT more about this craft than the article reveals.
(1) If the media are reporting on this craft, it's likely a lot farther along in its development than the article implies. It may, in fact, be already operational.
(2) OF COURSE it's a missile, as in "cruise missile". It's also a pilotless airplane That the various intelligence folk conceived of such a craft is entirely unremarkable. After all, we've been using pilotless reconnaissance aircraft for battlefield surveilance for some time now. The only difference between these craft and the "SR-72" is the speed and the range. (And, yes, I understand that the differences aren't trivial in their execution....)
I teach at a charter school for "at risk" high school students. Based on 5-years of doing this, I can't disagree that some kids are just "wired wrong", and have little hope of ever being positive, productive citizens. Jail is where they belong, and jail is where they should be, but the delay between the time when someone notices the kid is a sociopath and when he ends up being incarcerated usually allows the kid to inflict considerable damage on our society.
The use of crystal meth seems to create sociopaths, or at least its use quickly identifies them. Here in Arizona, we're in the throes of a "methidemic", which has put enormous pressure on all components of our society. I'm a social liberal, but I find myself wondering if there is any humane way to deal with this problem, and whether or not we'll just have to employ some truly draconian solutions to get it under control.
Having said all this, I must point out that there's a big HOWEVER! The letter that was posted on that site is completely unverified. We simply have no way of knowing who wrote it or whether any part of it is true. I'd personally take it with an ICEBERG OF SALT, much less a grain of salt. There are a lot of clever folks out there that can grind out a piece of fiction that smells just like fact. Let the reader beware!
Actually, I didn't take offense at what you wrote, and didn't intend that you should take offense at what I wrote. (I tell folks with whom I disagree on a variety of issues that I hope we can disagree and remain friends.) What's ironic is that, if a "civilizaion-ender" should collide with Earth, it's view (should it even have one!) would likely be that it just got run over by a bus. Ours might be, "what did we ever do to YOU, that you should end the existence of our species!" Meanwhile, the Earth would continue in its orbit, oblivious to it all, while the whole Universe continues to dance to the tune of Gravity....
Hmmmm. I don't remember having the late, great, Dr. Asimov's short story in mind. I merely wanted to point out that, if we get hit by a big enough object, probabilities won't matter, and we won't survive, regardless of how reasonable our plans seemed.
I teach introductory astronomy at a community college, and I've often made the joke in my lecture about PHAs that "the dinosaurs didn't have a planetary defense sytstem. Have you seen any dinosaurs around lately?"
Of course, very few of us have any starkly original thoughts. I'm pretty sure I haven't. We mostly build upon what we've been taught and what we've read.
I'm having this fantasy: A bunch of our distant predecessors have a website called "slashdino". An item is posted pointing out that an asteroid being observed by saurian astronomers has a 1-in-45K chance of hitting the planet. The vast majority of the postings point out that there are much more important potential disasters to which attention must be paid, etc., etc., etc.. The postings all seem oh, so reasonable. Of course, there are no more "saurian astronomers", because their fellows didn't listen to them....
What folks who quote an incredibly low probability that an asteroid will actually hit the Earth are missing is that, if such an asteroid (or comet) does hit, the probability is nearly 1.000 that it will result in the demise of our species!
This certainly isn't an original thought of mine, but we need to keep on hammering this point home. Our very survival depends on our taking action to develop a system for bumping potentially hazardous asteroids into paths that miss the Earth!
Two thoughts:
1. I don't find your comment funny at all. Reason is this item: "Then, you can call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party." Plain and simple, if the guy "did Stacy while she was passed out", he committed the crime of RAPE! If the author actually had knowledge of that, he should have reported it. If it didn't happen that way, then he shouldn't write about it as if it was just another example of "boys will be boys". (And, BTW, I'm a guy who knows the difference between making love with someone, and raping someone. Do you?)
2. If you "call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party.", AND if you attempt to gain anything of value from it, you're committing the crime of BLACKMAIL!
I doubt if you actually intended to convey the meaning that I took from your words. However, your words said what they said. I'd suggest that you think about what you write next time....
Can't really find anything with which to disagree. I just wish to ad that I read somewhere that Microsoft is moving to patent the words "blatent" and "blatently" so as so keep us from using it to describe their business practices. In response, I suggest that we all get together and resolve to use the phrase "the blatently-blatent Microsoft Corporation" at least once each day for the entire month of February....
Well, at least the number of dimensions necessary for string theory to work didn't reach 12 or 13. Can you imagine the problem we'd have with the folks from the Duodecimal Society of America sniping at the guys from the Baker's Union? Of course, the "Baker Street Irregulars" would have to weigh in, as well....
But, (only slightly) seriously, I'd suggest that, the last time I checked, physicists weren't being paid by the dimension or undefinable, physically meaningless constant. That would lead me to believe that they're only specifying that which appears to be necessary for the plumbing not to back up. And, of course, Schrodinger would say that whatever dimensions were unnecessary would just collapse, anyway, or, at least, they'd be highly improbable.
(Oh, yeah. The umlaat is probable, but it's late, so....)
Chevy's "concept" is ludicrous. It's just more smoke to delay the advent of an electric car. Here's why: There already have been feasible electric cars. I owned and drove one. It was called a "CitiCar". It was manufactured in the mid-70s by a firm known as Sebring-Vanguard. The original model used 6 6-volt batteries driving an 8-HP DC elevator motor. It had only two seats and an area behind them for about 6 bags of groceries. It looked like a pregnant door-stop, but it was safe, reasonably comfortable, and it was charged using ordinary 110V AC electricity. The CitiCar had a range of about 40-miles and a maximum speed of 40-mph, so it wasn't a car you'd take onto a freeway. Later versions could attain 45-50mph, and had about a 50-mile range. It took about 8-hours to fully recharge. The one I had ran fine, except that it used relays to switch power, which meant I was burnishing relay contacts every week or so. Also, the front brakes were (literally!) the same as those on a Cessna-172 airplane, and were simply not up to stopping an automobile. I re-engineered the brakes, but never got the power control system working dependably. So I donated the car to the local HS voc-ed department. (I know. I know. I wimped out!) However, DC power-control systems are now available that could have controlled the motor on this car easily. My point is that we CAN have electric cars right now if we don't demand that we be able to drive them to Vegas and get 50-mpg while doing it. We don't need electric cars that seat 5 defensive linemen and can go 75-mph! Many of us could save a lotta bucks driving a modern version of the CitiCar for commuting to and from work, shopping locally, and general driving around our neighborhoods. We could then either have another, larger car for occasional longer trips, rent such a car for those trips, or own a part of a larger car with a few friends or relatives. So, let's take a look at our definition of the word "feasible", shall we?
Another way of thinking about this report is to ask how remarkable it is. The late astronomer/UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek liked to assign two factors to a report: how remarkable (or strange) it was, and how well qualified the observer(s) were. Each was given a 1 through 5 rating, with 5 being most remarkable or best qualified. He then posited that only reports that had both factors greater than or equal to 4 should be studied. All that was seen was a disk-shaped object, hovering. It did nothing remarkable in the way it flew. Only the report that it created a hole in the low cloud deck as it flew through it is particularly remarkable, but it's not something that's outside the realm of possibility with earth-based technology, especially if the low cloud deck was fairly dense but not particularly thick. So, although the qualifications of the observers could be assigned factor 4 or 5, the level of strangeness might be a 2 at best. I'd suggest that this report isn't much more that a tempest in a teapot, uh, saucer.
Too bad the late President Gerald Ford couldn't somehow be brought back as a zombie, given his postumously-published comments about how little he thought of President Bush's violation of Americans' privacy rights. For that matter, I wonder why this honest and forthright man couldn't have summoned the courage to express his opinion of Mr. Bush's programs while he was still alive!
I teach at both a charter high school here in Central AZ, and at the local community college. I'm not a certified teacher, but, rather, worked as an engineer/astronomer for NASA for a lotta years. I'm astounded by the general lack of literacy (and numeracy) of students these days! An example: A student in my astronomy class at the college entered the following on his final exam: "The expansion of the Universe is opposed by the holdingness of space." Other examples: There are a quite a few teachers who know almost nothing about what they're teaching, especially in the sciences. A woman who had just won an award as "science teacher of the year" tried to correct me as I was explaining the phases of the moon to a kid at a local star party. She very enthusiastically gave me an explanation that was so wrong I can't even bring myself to repeat it! Another teacher interrupted me during a talk I was giving to her class on earth satellites. I had just explained why astronauts feel weightless in orbit. She tried to correct my explanation with this sentence: "But everyone knows there's no gravity in space."!!! Unitl teaching is both a well-paid and well-respected career, and until parents demand that their childred actually learn in school, and make sure their kids are in school regularly, we'll continue to see postings such as this one. And, of course, the "good jobs" will continue to immigrate to India.... (Sorry about this rant, but I DO feel SO much better, now!)
In evaluating PreacherTom's status, we should consider the following:
(1) If Tom's really a preacher, maybe God made him do it.
(2) If Tom's really a preacher, maybe the Devil made him do it.
(3) If this is the only way Tom can make a living, do we want to support him by paying him unemployment?
Seriously, though, I think a guy like PreacherTom should be allowed to ply his trade, but he should be required to disclose that he's a shill for "Business Week". That could include being required to change his moniker to "ShillerTom". For that matter, we could also require all lobbyists to do the same....
(In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I'm a traditionalist, in that I'm a real fan of natural grass.)
daveschroeder certainly asks a thought-provoking question and my own experience bears that out: My sister's first husband was an artist. Although he could draw reasonably well, he devoted most of his efforts to making enormous "blow-ups" of images of various aircraft, boats, etc.. His "technique"? He divided the image he wanted to blow up into a grid, and then just laid out a much bigger grid on the medium on which he would paint the final image. He then did a square-for-square transfer. Anyone could do it, but only he was.
Back then, in the early 70s, I thought he wasn't much of an artist, but that he was more of an artisan, mainly because he was only transferring someone else's image to a much larger canvas. Now, I'm not so sure. We have folks sampling little riffs from recordings and weaving them into other recordings in (sometimes!) interesting ways. We have artists who make interesting visual art by creating collages out of materials they didn't create themselves. We have photographers who make pictures of scenes they didn't create, but, rather, present in unexpected and interesting ways. And, of course, we have movies built around special effects that are pretty darn special, allowing a story to be told that couldn't have been told in any believable fashion only a few short years ago.
If we can use special effects to produce movies, why can we not use them to produce music?
I'd suggest that it's the finished product that counts. If you don't think a piece of is art, don't buy it, watch it, or listen to it.
We DO have socially-effected censorship. We get all "het up" when a public figure says something "heinous" while "under the influence" or "stressed out by heckler", or somesuch. Maybe we ought to celebrate the fact that these throwbacks say what they say. Wouldn't we be better off knowing what is really in their hearts, rather than only hearing what has been allowed to pass through the filter of their socially-effected censorship?
For that matter, shouldn't we be listening to our OWN nasty thoughts, the ones we all have, but never express?
What you fail to understand is that, when a retailer makes you jump through hoops in order to secure the rebate, and you allow that to happen, you've become a de facto employee of the retailer. Do you want to be an employee of Best Buy, Fry's, and all these other sleazy companies?
Hope you didn't have that mayonnaise jar and all its associated jars certified as a class. If you did, they'd all be required to be opened, and then where would we be? Have you ever SMELLED 6.02E+23 pints of rancid mayonnaise?
Courtesy of boxes of Wheaties, I own a one-square-inch plot of "land" both in Alaska and on the Moon! (I do admit, however, that it might take me a bit of time to actually find my deeds to same!)
I read quite a while ago that the land on which the plots were based was taken over by a govt agency in Alaska in satisfaction of back taxes. So, there goes my micro-homestead in that state!
Now they're trying to take my land on the Moon?! The scoundrels!
Slashdot Mirror
A few thoughts: (-1) I'd suspect that an aircraft moving along at Mach 6 would be pretty bright in the infrared region of the spectrum. Its advantage would be in simply arriving over the target to be surveiled so quickly that a missile defense system would be unable to react to its presence in time to intercept it. (0) Believe it: ALL of our "paranoid enemies" already know a LOT more about this craft than the article reveals. (1) If the media are reporting on this craft, it's likely a lot farther along in its development than the article implies. It may, in fact, be already operational. (2) OF COURSE it's a missile, as in "cruise missile". It's also a pilotless airplane That the various intelligence folk conceived of such a craft is entirely unremarkable. After all, we've been using pilotless reconnaissance aircraft for battlefield surveilance for some time now. The only difference between these craft and the "SR-72" is the speed and the range. (And, yes, I understand that the differences aren't trivial in their execution....)
See subject....
I thought it was Seinfeld!
Well, the nice thing about pyramid schemes is that you can keep things in the pyramid indefinitely....
I teach at a charter school for "at risk" high school students. Based on 5-years of doing this, I can't disagree that some kids are just "wired wrong", and have little hope of ever being positive, productive citizens. Jail is where they belong, and jail is where they should be, but the delay between the time when someone notices the kid is a sociopath and when he ends up being incarcerated usually allows the kid to inflict considerable damage on our society. The use of crystal meth seems to create sociopaths, or at least its use quickly identifies them. Here in Arizona, we're in the throes of a "methidemic", which has put enormous pressure on all components of our society. I'm a social liberal, but I find myself wondering if there is any humane way to deal with this problem, and whether or not we'll just have to employ some truly draconian solutions to get it under control. Having said all this, I must point out that there's a big HOWEVER! The letter that was posted on that site is completely unverified. We simply have no way of knowing who wrote it or whether any part of it is true. I'd personally take it with an ICEBERG OF SALT, much less a grain of salt. There are a lot of clever folks out there that can grind out a piece of fiction that smells just like fact. Let the reader beware!
Actually, I didn't take offense at what you wrote, and didn't intend that you should take offense at what I wrote. (I tell folks with whom I disagree on a variety of issues that I hope we can disagree and remain friends.) What's ironic is that, if a "civilizaion-ender" should collide with Earth, it's view (should it even have one!) would likely be that it just got run over by a bus. Ours might be, "what did we ever do to YOU, that you should end the existence of our species!" Meanwhile, the Earth would continue in its orbit, oblivious to it all, while the whole Universe continues to dance to the tune of Gravity....
Hmmmm. I don't remember having the late, great, Dr. Asimov's short story in mind. I merely wanted to point out that, if we get hit by a big enough object, probabilities won't matter, and we won't survive, regardless of how reasonable our plans seemed. I teach introductory astronomy at a community college, and I've often made the joke in my lecture about PHAs that "the dinosaurs didn't have a planetary defense sytstem. Have you seen any dinosaurs around lately?" Of course, very few of us have any starkly original thoughts. I'm pretty sure I haven't. We mostly build upon what we've been taught and what we've read.
I'm having this fantasy: A bunch of our distant predecessors have a website called "slashdino". An item is posted pointing out that an asteroid being observed by saurian astronomers has a 1-in-45K chance of hitting the planet. The vast majority of the postings point out that there are much more important potential disasters to which attention must be paid, etc., etc., etc.. The postings all seem oh, so reasonable. Of course, there are no more "saurian astronomers", because their fellows didn't listen to them.... What folks who quote an incredibly low probability that an asteroid will actually hit the Earth are missing is that, if such an asteroid (or comet) does hit, the probability is nearly 1.000 that it will result in the demise of our species! This certainly isn't an original thought of mine, but we need to keep on hammering this point home. Our very survival depends on our taking action to develop a system for bumping potentially hazardous asteroids into paths that miss the Earth!
Two thoughts: 1. I don't find your comment funny at all. Reason is this item: "Then, you can call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party." Plain and simple, if the guy "did Stacy while she was passed out", he committed the crime of RAPE! If the author actually had knowledge of that, he should have reported it. If it didn't happen that way, then he shouldn't write about it as if it was just another example of "boys will be boys". (And, BTW, I'm a guy who knows the difference between making love with someone, and raping someone. Do you?) 2. If you "call them up and ask them if they remember the time they did Stacy while she was passed out after the office party.", AND if you attempt to gain anything of value from it, you're committing the crime of BLACKMAIL! I doubt if you actually intended to convey the meaning that I took from your words. However, your words said what they said. I'd suggest that you think about what you write next time....
Can't really find anything with which to disagree. I just wish to ad that I read somewhere that Microsoft is moving to patent the words "blatent" and "blatently" so as so keep us from using it to describe their business practices. In response, I suggest that we all get together and resolve to use the phrase "the blatently-blatent Microsoft Corporation" at least once each day for the entire month of February....
Well, at least the number of dimensions necessary for string theory to work didn't reach 12 or 13. Can you imagine the problem we'd have with the folks from the Duodecimal Society of America sniping at the guys from the Baker's Union? Of course, the "Baker Street Irregulars" would have to weigh in, as well.... But, (only slightly) seriously, I'd suggest that, the last time I checked, physicists weren't being paid by the dimension or undefinable, physically meaningless constant. That would lead me to believe that they're only specifying that which appears to be necessary for the plumbing not to back up. And, of course, Schrodinger would say that whatever dimensions were unnecessary would just collapse, anyway, or, at least, they'd be highly improbable. (Oh, yeah. The umlaat is probable, but it's late, so....)
Why would anyone think that we'd regard the presence of craplets as reflecting badly on Microsoft? After all, there are so many OTHER reasons!
Chevy's "concept" is ludicrous. It's just more smoke to delay the advent of an electric car. Here's why: There already have been feasible electric cars. I owned and drove one. It was called a "CitiCar". It was manufactured in the mid-70s by a firm known as Sebring-Vanguard. The original model used 6 6-volt batteries driving an 8-HP DC elevator motor. It had only two seats and an area behind them for about 6 bags of groceries. It looked like a pregnant door-stop, but it was safe, reasonably comfortable, and it was charged using ordinary 110V AC electricity. The CitiCar had a range of about 40-miles and a maximum speed of 40-mph, so it wasn't a car you'd take onto a freeway. Later versions could attain 45-50mph, and had about a 50-mile range. It took about 8-hours to fully recharge. The one I had ran fine, except that it used relays to switch power, which meant I was burnishing relay contacts every week or so. Also, the front brakes were (literally!) the same as those on a Cessna-172 airplane, and were simply not up to stopping an automobile. I re-engineered the brakes, but never got the power control system working dependably. So I donated the car to the local HS voc-ed department. (I know. I know. I wimped out!) However, DC power-control systems are now available that could have controlled the motor on this car easily. My point is that we CAN have electric cars right now if we don't demand that we be able to drive them to Vegas and get 50-mpg while doing it. We don't need electric cars that seat 5 defensive linemen and can go 75-mph! Many of us could save a lotta bucks driving a modern version of the CitiCar for commuting to and from work, shopping locally, and general driving around our neighborhoods. We could then either have another, larger car for occasional longer trips, rent such a car for those trips, or own a part of a larger car with a few friends or relatives. So, let's take a look at our definition of the word "feasible", shall we?
Another way of thinking about this report is to ask how remarkable it is. The late astronomer/UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek liked to assign two factors to a report: how remarkable (or strange) it was, and how well qualified the observer(s) were. Each was given a 1 through 5 rating, with 5 being most remarkable or best qualified. He then posited that only reports that had both factors greater than or equal to 4 should be studied. All that was seen was a disk-shaped object, hovering. It did nothing remarkable in the way it flew. Only the report that it created a hole in the low cloud deck as it flew through it is particularly remarkable, but it's not something that's outside the realm of possibility with earth-based technology, especially if the low cloud deck was fairly dense but not particularly thick. So, although the qualifications of the observers could be assigned factor 4 or 5, the level of strangeness might be a 2 at best. I'd suggest that this report isn't much more that a tempest in a teapot, uh, saucer.
...should be: "Are you now, or have you ever been a scientist?"!
Too bad the late President Gerald Ford couldn't somehow be brought back as a zombie, given his postumously-published comments about how little he thought of President Bush's violation of Americans' privacy rights. For that matter, I wonder why this honest and forthright man couldn't have summoned the courage to express his opinion of Mr. Bush's programs while he was still alive!
I teach at both a charter high school here in Central AZ, and at the local community college. I'm not a certified teacher, but, rather, worked as an engineer/astronomer for NASA for a lotta years. I'm astounded by the general lack of literacy (and numeracy) of students these days! An example: A student in my astronomy class at the college entered the following on his final exam: "The expansion of the Universe is opposed by the holdingness of space." Other examples: There are a quite a few teachers who know almost nothing about what they're teaching, especially in the sciences. A woman who had just won an award as "science teacher of the year" tried to correct me as I was explaining the phases of the moon to a kid at a local star party. She very enthusiastically gave me an explanation that was so wrong I can't even bring myself to repeat it! Another teacher interrupted me during a talk I was giving to her class on earth satellites. I had just explained why astronauts feel weightless in orbit. She tried to correct my explanation with this sentence: "But everyone knows there's no gravity in space."!!! Unitl teaching is both a well-paid and well-respected career, and until parents demand that their childred actually learn in school, and make sure their kids are in school regularly, we'll continue to see postings such as this one. And, of course, the "good jobs" will continue to immigrate to India.... (Sorry about this rant, but I DO feel SO much better, now!)
In evaluating PreacherTom's status, we should consider the following: (1) If Tom's really a preacher, maybe God made him do it. (2) If Tom's really a preacher, maybe the Devil made him do it. (3) If this is the only way Tom can make a living, do we want to support him by paying him unemployment? Seriously, though, I think a guy like PreacherTom should be allowed to ply his trade, but he should be required to disclose that he's a shill for "Business Week". That could include being required to change his moniker to "ShillerTom". For that matter, we could also require all lobbyists to do the same.... (In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I'm a traditionalist, in that I'm a real fan of natural grass.)
daveschroeder certainly asks a thought-provoking question and my own experience bears that out: My sister's first husband was an artist. Although he could draw reasonably well, he devoted most of his efforts to making enormous "blow-ups" of images of various aircraft, boats, etc.. His "technique"? He divided the image he wanted to blow up into a grid, and then just laid out a much bigger grid on the medium on which he would paint the final image. He then did a square-for-square transfer. Anyone could do it, but only he was. Back then, in the early 70s, I thought he wasn't much of an artist, but that he was more of an artisan, mainly because he was only transferring someone else's image to a much larger canvas. Now, I'm not so sure. We have folks sampling little riffs from recordings and weaving them into other recordings in (sometimes!) interesting ways. We have artists who make interesting visual art by creating collages out of materials they didn't create themselves. We have photographers who make pictures of scenes they didn't create, but, rather, present in unexpected and interesting ways. And, of course, we have movies built around special effects that are pretty darn special, allowing a story to be told that couldn't have been told in any believable fashion only a few short years ago. If we can use special effects to produce movies, why can we not use them to produce music? I'd suggest that it's the finished product that counts. If you don't think a piece of is art, don't buy it, watch it, or listen to it.
We DO have socially-effected censorship. We get all "het up" when a public figure says something "heinous" while "under the influence" or "stressed out by heckler", or somesuch. Maybe we ought to celebrate the fact that these throwbacks say what they say. Wouldn't we be better off knowing what is really in their hearts, rather than only hearing what has been allowed to pass through the filter of their socially-effected censorship? For that matter, shouldn't we be listening to our OWN nasty thoughts, the ones we all have, but never express?
What you fail to understand is that, when a retailer makes you jump through hoops in order to secure the rebate, and you allow that to happen, you've become a de facto employee of the retailer. Do you want to be an employee of Best Buy, Fry's, and all these other sleazy companies?
We need a thread exclusively devoted to providing definitions for the acronym "PSOT"....
I propose that these moons be named "About the Size of Boulder, CO" and "Smaller Than That".
Hope you didn't have that mayonnaise jar and all its associated jars certified as a class. If you did, they'd all be required to be opened, and then where would we be? Have you ever SMELLED 6.02E+23 pints of rancid mayonnaise?
Courtesy of boxes of Wheaties, I own a one-square-inch plot of "land" both in Alaska and on the Moon! (I do admit, however, that it might take me a bit of time to actually find my deeds to same!) I read quite a while ago that the land on which the plots were based was taken over by a govt agency in Alaska in satisfaction of back taxes. So, there goes my micro-homestead in that state! Now they're trying to take my land on the Moon?! The scoundrels!